Brian Lilley: The MSM is lying about the muslim riots video 12:01
Posted on 11/17/2012 1:17:37 PM PST by Qbert
I think you and a number of other people here, perhaps the majority see this differently than I do. And so, I face the fact that I might be wrong with these thoughts, but here we go anyway.
The move to support the rebels in Libya was misguided IMO. None the less, it was the decision of our government to do so. McCain was in. I believe Palin was favorable to our support for the rebels. I didn’t think it was wise to help destabilize the region.
I viewed Ghadaffi as vile, but more or less content to live out the rest of his years in relative peace with the West. What would replace him would be a crap shoot, something we had no way of knowing.
We supported the Rebels. I wouldn’t be surprised if we armed them. If that was our policy, then wouldn’t it make sense to arm the Syrian rebels too? It may have been an unannounced policy, but it wouldn’t be out of line with our intent to help what some people must have perceived as “freedom fighters’.
I didn’t want us involved in these efforts from the get-go. Once we did, this natural progression seems reasoned from the opposing point of view.
McCain, I believe Palin, and Obama seemed to agree with helping the rebels. Members of Congress must have too. There didn’t seem to be serious push-back to our helping them.
In this environment, I just don’t see the possibility of gun running to Syria to be all that surprising, or scandalous.
Do I agree with it? I don’t think we should have taken a position on these “freedom” movements to begin with. The whole think including gun running seems a mistake to me, but scandalous? I’m not convinced of that.
I’m just remain convinced our being involved at all was a mistake.
I thought Petraeus said (it was behind closed doors, I guess only the people in the room know)that we were trying not to let on that we knew that it was Al Quada , somehow to fake them out, to what end? Like there was going to be an immediate counter-strike? Where was it by October 15 ( five weeks after the fact) when the NYT had finally put together the umpteenth cover story that Green Footballs quotes? Can't take the stain out of Obama running off to Las Vegas as though nothing had happened; his reference to "bumps in the road;" (one is reminded of Braddock's final resting place courtesy of George Washington on the retreat from the disastrous battle of the Monongahela, 1755); nor overlook the fact that the Fort Hood shooting has been called "workplace violence" over the obviously pre-meditated terror attack it was. It has been Obama's trademark throughout his Presidency to refuse to call "the war against us, " "Moslem extremist terror." If you missed that , Green Footballs, then no wonder you have no idea what happened here either, so just shut up.
Maybe he contracted syphilis. I hear it can really screw up your mind. Moral of the story, be careful who you lay down with.
So, Obama & cohorts played down the after-action report by CIA that this was an organized AQ associate attack on our Mission at Benghazi. The cover story was a demonstration incited by a video. Ooooookay.
How did anyone from Obama to Susan Rice to Hillary plan to play down this central, unchanged, decisive fact, known by Obama on down within 24 hours of the attack:
Two Americans were KIA by mortar fire at 0400.
Why isn’t the media, McCain, and everyone hammering that fact home at every opportunity?
Obammy promised to “get the guys responsible” for it.
How’s that manhunt going? Do we even have their names yet?
Obama got Osama and Hillary bragged about the war crime murder of Gaddafi.
LGF has gone RATsh!t crazy.
Charles, can I just call you DICK for short. Whether THE FOREIGNER knew it was a TERRORIST ATTACK or NOT is about what a HEADLINE READER socialist fraud like you knows about the screw-up. I would expect nothing less from THE MORONS on the LEFT who believe obama’s fraudulent birth certificate is REAL.
We disagree. I think Iran/Contra was an overrated joke
with Democrat politicians trying to run US foreign
policy.
Stuck on stupid and still whoring out the White House meme that this was caused by an unseen Youtube clip.
Little green pooballs.
"David Petraeus’s testimony backing up everything the administration said."
"I thought Petraeus said (it was behind closed doors, I guess only the people in the room know)that we were trying not to let on that we knew that it was Al Quada , somehow to fake them out, to what end? Like there was going to be an immediate counter-strike?..."
And this spin runs completely contrary to the claim Obama and his minions were making after the second debate: That POTUS was saying all along that it was a terrorist attack ("Say it louder Candy!") from day one.
If the leftists are trying to argue that everything is hunky dory because Petraeus, or whoever, wanted to "tone down" the terrorist rhetoric, why would you have the president make a big Rose Garden speech the day after and claim that it was an "act of terror"? That would only amplify things- not tone them down (if we are to believe the president). Do Al-Qaeda members not watch TV, or have access to the Internet?... Hussein Obama can't have it both ways.
Fox News is reporting this afternoon that the WH is now saying that no one in the WH changed the CIA intel report. So we’ve added a ‘spontaneously changing intel memo’ to the ‘spontaneous protest turned riot’ to the long line of WH lies.
Brian Lilley: The MSM is lying about the muslim riots video 12:01
I'm pretty sure the attackers already know who the attackers are, so tipping them off shouldn't have been an issue.
You are right about the logic of aiding Libya leading to an arming of Syria. Some are, but I don’t think most people think intervening in Syria is a scandal in itself. It may be wrong, but covertly arming rebels around the globe is boilerplate US foreign policy.
The thing, and I assume the reason the earlier poster brought it up, is that if the White House is lying about the attack to cover up gunrunning to Syria then we won’t figure it out unless we dig in that ground. If that is in fact what’s happening, first of all the whole business makes sense for once, and just maybe people will see how it us like Watergate. Because it is, I just don’t know why yet.
Remember, in Watergate the “coverup was worse than the crime.” This had to be drummed into our ears because the burglary itself was meaningless on a national scale. We don’t know for sure to this day what was the point, and Nixon versus McGovern was like the little league world champs against the Yankees, anyway.
"So, Obama & cohorts played down the after-action report by CIA that this was an organized AQ associate attack on our Mission at Benghazi. The cover story was a demonstration incited by a video. Ooooookay. How did anyone from Obama to Susan Rice to Hillary plan to play down this central, unchanged, decisive fact, known by Obama on down within 24 hours of the attack: Two Americans were KIA by mortar fire at 0400. Why isn’t the media, McCain, and everyone hammering that fact home at every opportunity?"
This is what the left and the MSM always do. There were more MSM stories in one day about McCain missing the meeting the other day, than about Obama's direct knowledge of the Benghazi events, combined, in the months since they occurred. They want to distract people from the real horror of what Obama let happen that night...
Little Green Footballs???? HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! That Islamopandering turncoat f*ckwad has no real following.
“with Democrat politicians trying to run US foreign policy”
That was half of it, and the half I’m fine with. You can’t bring down a presidency through an overly ambitious law—the Boland amendment—which came at the end of seemingly endless back and forth over whether or not to fund Nicaraguan rebels. I am not at all convinced they violated the law. Congress can control how the White House spends Congressionally appropriated money, not necessarily private donations or CIA profits.
The half that bothered me was negotiating with Hezbollah for the release of hostages. Unlike funding or not funding the contras it was longstanding US policy not to negotiate with terrorists, and I believe in it.
CIA's language on Benghazi was barely edited, White House says
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.